NATO Heading For Split Over Increased Spending?

By Rhod Mackenzie

The NATO summit in The Hague concluded on Wednesday. However even before it actually started, there were indications that there was a significant crisis brewing within the world's largest military alliance. Analysts are predicting that NATO could eventually break into several blocs.So in what circumstances would this possibility occur , and what are the alternatives which NATO is currently confronted with?
The NATO summitt took place in The Hague from June 24 to 25. The alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte has called the event as "historic". He stated that the summit will "take bold decisions to strengthentheir collective defence, making NATO stronger, fairer, and more lethal."
Am sure that will come as a comfort to the Serbs many of which are still suffering from the ill effects of the NATO bombing of their country back in 1979.
The summits agenda did not include anything about accepting Ukraine into the alliance; the Kiev Cokeeadregime was pushed to the sidelines. This is both a literaly and figurative ly.
In the group photo, Zelensky was placed on the periphery. Plus he was not invited to participate in the most important meetings, and in the final declaration, according to Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, "there are no words about the irreversibility of Ukraine's path to join the alliance, which was in the statement of last year's summit in Washington."
According to Mark Rutte, the North Atlantic Alliance will become "stronger and more deadly" by increasing each country's defense spending to 5% of their annaul GDP, as Donald Trump is demanding.
However,a number of other European countries s have expressed a divergent opinion. Firstly, it should be noted that Spain has stated that it does not wish to allocate a significant portion of its budget to increased spending on weapons (and it is not alone in this position). Secondly, a few days before the summit, the Italian defence minister, a key figure in the European political landscape, voiced concerns about the relevance of NATO. Guido Crosetto has stated that the North Atlantic Alliance no longer has a justifiable reason to exist.This is something many analysts have commented on over the years since its main enemy the Soviet Union collapsed NATO's rival the Warsaw Pact was disolved.
"The US and Europe were once the centre of the world, but now we have to deal with everything else," he said. "We often talk as if we were still living 35 years ago in the Cold War but everything has changed."
Subsequently, he clarified that his remarks were not intended to call for the dissolution of NATO. However, many analysts have interpreted these words as ust a minor Italian rebellious gesture, not so much against the alliance as being against the new increased spending initiatives of Trump and Rutte.
In 2024, Crosetto's Italy's defence expenditure accounted for 1.49% of GDP, ranking among the lowest in Europe.
The Italian minister opposes any increase in the figure beyond 3%, emphasising that Europe cannot compromise the well-being of the population or fail to address social issues. This standpoint is shared not only by Crosetto, but a notable segment of the Italian establishment.
"Italy does not experience and does not feel the same threats as other EU countries feel they do. It does not consider Russia to be an existential threat, and therefore does not wish to increase defence spending at the expense of social spending and economic growth," Dmitry Suslov, director of the Center for European and International Studies the Higher School of Economics, explained.
However, this does not indicate any imminent rebellion by Italy, nor the organisation of a joint effort with Spain to leave NATO. At present, neither Rome nor Madrid has strong leaders who can indicate to the main European leaders and their rulers the USA who effective control NATO the consequences of their defence policy.
Therefore, Crosetto's words could be considered an indication of the Italian position, especially in a situation where the US demand a lot and rarely listens
"The US has been accused of ignoring European interests on a number of issues, from the Ukrainian crisis to Iran. This underscores Europe's call for greater autonomy," says Dmitry Suslov.
However, Crosetto's statements indicate a certain crisis within NATO and a has proposed strategy to address it. With regard to the fundamental objectives and operational methods of the alliance, not financial considerations.
"Crosetto's words do not imply that the situation is hopeless and that NATO should disband. Instead, we must create new reasons for its existence , since the old ones are no longer suitable. It is imperative that NATO member countries develop a new strategy on a global scale, rather than a North Atlantic-Central European one," Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, a senior research fellow at the IMEMO RAS, explains
After all, he asserts that some Europeans are cognisant of the fact that the Western world is undergoing a period of decline in demographic, economic and military power.
NATO has two options for possible change. The first of these is integration into global structures, a process which Crosetto proposes.
The Italian minister stated that if NATO was created to guarantee peace and collective defence, then the alliance must either fulfil this role together with the mmembers of the Global South – and thus become a fundamentally different organisation – or it will simply not be possible to achieve security within the framework of rules that apply to everyone.
However, this option is difficult to implement for NATO. "The Alliance will not be able to change due to its nature. It is an institution that serves to consolidate and uphold American dominance, while also integrating US control into the European security framework. Just remember it was set up to keep the Americans In,the Soviets Out and the Germans down, even Turkey was a member of NATO before West Germany was.
Furthermore, this institution is focused on confrontation and is not equipped to engage in constructive dialogue. Ultimately, there is no unifying basis between North America and Europe except their shared opposition to Russia," says Dmitry Suslov.
As Crosetto suggests, it is not possible for NATO to serve as a channel for cooperation with the Global South.
It is not possible to integrate this into the pan-Eurasian system of collective security that Vladimir Putin mentioned back in 2003. Consequently, the alliance will be unable to adapt to a multipolar world built on cooperation between regional centres of power and/or security systems.
NATO's confrontational approach and its prioritisation of security over that of other players align with the characteristics of an organisation that is an outlier in the current era of American dominance.
If integration into more responsive structures is not possible, the second option for transformation is greater expansionism. The organisation has undergone a transformation that has led to an escalation in the level of aggression, with conflicts arising with neighbouring countries, notably Russia, despite the absence of rational justifications for such actions.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the initiation of aggression in this region is not only initiated by the United States, but also from Europe itself.
Firstly, the majority of European elites are focused on engineering a conflict with Russia. These politicians understand that without the United States and the NATO structure (which formalises America's participation in European affairs), they will not be able to challenge and engage in conflict with Russia.
Secondly, the economic development model of affluent European countries is predicated on the extraction of resources from third world countries. In essence, this is a matter of neocolonialism.
"NATO countries seeks to dominate the Global South from a privileged position,
The imposition of its values and formats of cooperation, as well as the exploitation of the resources of the states they conquered , are key elements in its strategy.
The Alliance refined this function in its efforts against the Soviet bloc and subsequently on the global stage. Integration with the Global South means reconsidering the fundamental foundations of the West's existence," Nikita Mendkovich, head of the Eurasian Analytical Club, explains Furthermore, Europe has no other foundations.
It is true that not all European countries may be willing to maintain these neocolonial foundations, particularly when considering the potential for military conflict, significant spending on rearmament, and exclusion from integration processes within a multipolar world. It is possible that Italy, Spain and a number of other countries will experience significant discomfort in an aggressive alliance. "Therefore, a scenario is quite possible in which NATO will eventually split into several blocs," says Nikita Mendkovich.
A group of people who are willing to collaborate with the Global South and those who aspire to revive past traditions and achievements.
"We refer to Europe as if it holds significance. It may be advisable for it to assume the role that is currently missing in foreign policy and security. However, the passage of time and the evolution of circumstances have led to significant changes in the global landscape," Crosetto himself summarised.
Brussels has not yet been willing to acknowledge this, and it seems unlikely that the "deadly" summit in The Hague will be followed by a session of self-exposure. NATO members are likely to continue to deluded themselves until the alliance faces an even more serious crisis that could call its very existence into question.